Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/03/03/20:32:57
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:14:28PM -0800, Eric Melski wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>>I understand that you're trying to be POSIX-like, but I wonder if doing
>>>so at the cost of compatibility with the host OS is wise. To be sure,
>>>the implementation you have chosen will break some Windows
>>>applications.
>>>
>>>It seems to me that ultimately you are emulating POSIX-like behavior on
>>>top of what is fundamentally NOT a POSIX-like system. If that is so,
>>>then why not use a different implementation that is sure not to break
>>>existing non-Cygwin Windows applications? The proposal I made
>>>previously (report Windows modify time as both Cygwin mtime and ctime)
>>>would give Cygwin applications a reasonable approximation of ctime in
>>>the POSIX sense, while retaining a correct value of creation time for
>>>Windows applications.
>>
>>
>>Your arguments would be a little more persuasive if you did more than
>>postulate the surety of breakage and actually pointed to real breakage
>>or, at least, demonstrated how a windows application would be harmed by
>>cygwin's handling of ctime.
>
>The problem described in the following post to this mailing list
>earlier today sounds like it is caused by Cygwin's new treatment
>of ctime:
>
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2005-03/msg00165.html
Since the CVS in question is a cygwin version, if this really is a
problem with ctime then it seems rather strange that cygwin's attempts
to behave more like POSIX would break a utility which relies on that
very behavior.
In any event, this isn't the postulated problem with a native windows
application.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -